The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
and take it back a little bit and you can look for those by giving various peptides or fluorescein or dyes that measure it by oral that should be excluded from the blood and seeing if the fluorescence gets into the blood or you can measure it with certain sugars that should not be absorbed and if the non-absorbable sugar gets into the body then you'd assume there's a slight leak of the kind you're talking about
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.